strength vs size, volume vs weight, and total cals (long)

Options
I'm kind of thinking out load here, so bear with me. I know there's no such thing as a perfect routine. But I also know that I'm analytical enough and obsessive enough to continually over think things.

And so I bring you this thread. I've done a bunch of reading, and I'm trying to tie all the bits and pieces together. Here is the cliff notes of everything I've read:

- lower reps emphasize strength gains (generally accepted numbers seem to be in the 4-8 range)
- higher reps emphasize growth of new muscle tissue (6-10 reps seems to be the general consensus here)
- anything over 12-15 reps seems to be overkill, for lack of a better word... more than that and you'll see diminishing returns based on the time/effort you put in.

Before I go on, is that pretty accurate? Any issues with that? I assume those numbers assume 3-5 sets?

Now, a little background/perspective for you, in case it skews the conversation at all...
I'm not sure what the distinction is between a beginner lifter and an intermediate, so that kind of grays the conversation for me. From an experience standpoint, I'm probably a beginner. I did stronglifts most of last winter, and am currently doing full body workouts focusing on compound lifts 4 days a week. But physically I've always been above average - I'm stronger and faster than the "average" person, I can push myself harder/further, I pick up skills faster, I recover faster, etc. etc. So part of me says, "Just pick a beginner routine and do it." While another part of me says, "Figure out a routine that is more suited to your ability."

My first question has to do with strength gains. I've seen a lot of people talk about strength gains being neurological, not muscular... in that your body learns how to move more weight, rather than your muscles get stronger and allow you to move more weight. Is that true? Is there any significant muscle change that comes with added strength? Does this depend on how advanced a lifter you are?

Next, for muscle growth (new tissue) to occur, a calorie surplus is required. I'm ignoring the relatively small gains that can be made by certain people under certain conditions... but generally speaking, for steady, longer term gains, a calorie surplus is required, correct? Can't build a house without the lumber, right?

So for someone doing bulk/cut cycles, whose goals lie in both their strength-to-weight ratio AND simply looking better...
If strength gains are largely (if not entirely) neurological, and mass gains are largely physical, does it make more sense to do a high volume/low weight routine (by it's nature more geared towards muscle growth) during a bulk than it does during a cut? And conversely, does it make more sense to do a low volume/high weight on a cut?


.
«13

Replies

  • madmickie
    madmickie Posts: 221 Member
    Options
    No idea but you sound like one hell of a guy.
  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,293 Member
    Options
    My first question has to do with strength gains. I've seen a lot of people talk about strength gains being neurological, not muscular... in that your body learns how to move more weight, rather than your muscles get stronger and allow you to move more weight. Is that true? Is there any significant muscle change that comes with added strength? Does this depend on how advanced a lifter you are?

    Your muscles work too, but it is more neurological than muscular. This is more prevalent with lower reps higher weight (1-3 rep ranges). With the higher weight lower rep strength gains your muscles tend to become more dense, not necessarily larger in size, as they are not filling up with fluid like you get at higher rep ranges. I think at first you will see muscular and neurological gains in weight pushed, the more advanced the more neurological it becomes (From my understanding, correct me if I am wrong here)
    Next, for muscle growth (new tissue) to occur, a calorie surplus is required. I'm ignoring the relatively small gains that can be made by certain people under certain conditions... but generally speaking, for steady, longer term gains, a calorie surplus is required, correct? Can't build a house without the lumber, right?

    Yup, unless testosterone levels are higher than "normal" then you will see some muscle gains, but put that and a surplus together and gains would be much more.
    So for someone doing bulk/cut cycles, whose goals lie in both their strength-to-weight ratio AND simply looking better...
    If strength gains are largely (if not entirely) neurological, and mass gains are largely physical, does it make more sense to do a high volume/low weight routine (by it's nature more geared towards muscle growth) during a bulk than it does during a cut? And conversely, does it make more sense to do a low volume/high weight on a cut?

    Depends entirely on your goals, but in theory what you are saying makes sense, but some muscle development does happen at the high weight low reps.
    For strength to weight ratio it will always be better to do high weight low reps, in a bulk and cut will be best. If it is to look better/bigger, and be stronger than your idea of heavy low rep on a cut with lighter weight higher rep on a bulk to gain mass, makes sense in theory. (Anyone do this in practice)

    My understanding is that you increase the muscle fibers at the low rep high weight, but with the higher reps lower weight you mainly grow the existing muscle fibers by having them tear and rebuild and fill with fluid.

    Again if this info needs to be adjusted or corrected I am open to it. This is just my understanding of how it all works.
  • chivalryder
    chivalryder Posts: 4,391 Member
    Options
    From my understanding, yes, strength gain is very much neurological. There's no point in having big muscles if your body isn't able to control them properly. Movement comes from electrons flowing through your muscles, causing them to contract. Don't get enough electrons, you don't get as much contraction.

    I wouldn't say that high reps give you no benefit. High repetitions develops endurance. Sure, you may not get much stronger when compared to doing 1 rep lifts, but it's not useless. It will help you develop that much-needed neurological connection and control. It will also help lubricate the joints, and will allow the very important soft tissues to develop better than low repetitions/high weight will do.

    I'm doing the Convict Conditioning program which is purely callisthenics. There are 6 exercises you do, with 10 steps of progression from super easy to huge feats of strength. In each step, you start from low reps (think 1 set of 1-10 reps, depending on difficulty) and slowly work your way to high reps to develop the soft tissues and everything I spoke up in the previous paragraph (think 2 sets of 20-3 sets of 50).

    Pick up a copy of the book and give it a good read. It'll really open your eyes up to how strong men used to train - long before the barbell and steroids were invented.
  • jodi41086
    Options
    No idea but you sound like one hell of a guy.

    Agree :O)
  • Determinednoob
    Determinednoob Posts: 2,001 Member
    Options
    Yes, accurate on rep ranges.

    You are no longer a beginner when you can not progress in weight\reps at the rate of a beginner. Not 100%, but generally this will be somewhere close to 1RMS being 1.2xBW Bench, 2xBW Squat, 2.5xBW Deadlift

    The neural strength gains mostly come in the beginning. Beyond that it is muscle strength. That is why you see things like "most anything works for the first 12 weeks" Knowing your background from other threads, you have probably gotten most of the nerual strength gains you can get. There is some muscle size gain that comes with strength gain\training, especially with less advanced lifters. Eventually you can get into the difference between myofibrilar (comes more from strength training and is smaller visually) and sarcoplasmic (comes more from your mid rep ranges and is caused by fluid storage) hypertrophy.

    Yes, you need a calorie surplus for growth. New muscle tissue isn't built out of nothing.

    For some reason it is common for people to think they have to be limited to one rep range. Guess what. You don't! There are good prewritten programs out there that do both such as PHAT and 5/3/1 Boring But Big template. PHAT does 2 upper and 2 lower with one of each being Power (high weight low rep) and one of each being Hypertrophy (mid weight mid rep) I personally plan to move to 5/3/1 BBB template arranged to work muscles 2 times per week. In that one you work each of the big 4 (Squat, Bench, Deadlift, OHP) on a separate day for power, and then do one or two additional lifts in mid weight\rep, I think 4x12.
  • ArroganceInStep
    ArroganceInStep Posts: 6,239 Member
    Options
    In before the folks saying 5x5 is the only way to do things.

    First and foremost different muscles respond differently to different rep ranges. I've heard (so anecdotal I know, but I tend to trust Paul Carter when it comes to lifting and he's said it) that legs respond better hypertrophy wise to higher rep sets (20+) while your upper body does better with lower rep sets for hypertrophy (8-20). Then again, he's also doing insane crap like curling the bar for 160 reps in a set, or 65 pounds for 100, and his arms are jacked as hell. For 5-3-1 folks, Wendler likes it too and came up with this with him: http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_article/most_recent/100rep_challenge

    From my relatively amatuer perspective, it has more to do with how much energy you have than if you're bulking/cutting. High weight, low rep, compound movements tend to give you the most bang for your buck in terms of overall strength and musculature. Make sure you do those, and if you still have the energy afterwards you can add in some bodybuilding stuff to improve/enhance musculature.

    I really think the only difference between bulking and cutting workout routines is that you can do more cardio on a bulk and you should either be doing more volume or seeing faster gains with your lifts during that time, too.
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    Options
    My first question has to do with strength gains. I've seen a lot of people talk about strength gains being neurological, not muscular... in that your body learns how to move more weight, rather than your muscles get stronger and allow you to move more weight. Is that true? Is there any significant muscle change that comes with added strength? Does this depend on how advanced a lifter you are?

    Your muscles work too, but it is more neurological than muscular. This is more prevalent with lower reps higher weight (1-3 rep ranges). With the higher weight lower rep strength gains your muscles tend to become more dense, not necessarily larger in size, as they are not filling up with fluid like you get at higher rep ranges. I think at first you will see muscular and neurological gains in weight pushed, the more advanced the more neurological it becomes (From my understanding, correct me if I am wrong here)

    Makes sense.


    So for someone doing bulk/cut cycles, whose goals lie in both their strength-to-weight ratio AND simply looking better...
    If strength gains are largely (if not entirely) neurological, and mass gains are largely physical, does it make more sense to do a high volume/low weight routine (by it's nature more geared towards muscle growth) during a bulk than it does during a cut? And conversely, does it make more sense to do a low volume/high weight on a cut?

    Depends entirely on your goals, but in theory what you are saying makes sense, but some muscle development does happen at the high weight low reps.
    For strength to weight ratio it will always be better to do high weight low reps, in a bulk and cut will be best. If it is to look better/bigger, and be stronger than your idea of heavy low rep on a cut with lighter weight higher rep on a bulk to gain mass, makes sense in theory. (Anyone do this in practice)
    Logically it makes sense, but what seems logical isn't always the case. Anyone have experience with or know of studies relevant this... to cycling routes and cals?


    My understanding is that you increase the muscle fibers at the low rep high weight, but with the higher reps lower weight you mainly grow the existing muscle fibers by having them tear and rebuild and fill with fluid.

    If I'm reading that right...
    High weight/low volume = increase in muscle fibers... As in the number of them? Building new fibers/tissue = adding size/mass, no?

    Low weight/high volume = tearing/rebuilding fibers... so no new tissue?

    Doesn't that go against the whole low weight/high volume = mass and low volume/high weight = strength idea?
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    Options
    I wouldn't say that high reps give you no benefit. High repetitions develops endurance. Sure, you may not get much stronger when compared to doing 1 rep lifts, but it's not useless. It will help you develop that much-needed neurological connection and control. It will also help lubricate the joints, and will allow the very important soft tissues to develop better than low repetitions/high weight will do.
    I never said it was useless, only that gains in strength and size will diminish as reps go up. Endurance was never part of the conversation because endurance (muscular or cardiovascular) isn't why I lift.
  • yecatsml
    yecatsml Posts: 180 Member
    Options
    Tons of good info here - I am always learning something new!
  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,293 Member
    Options
    If I'm reading that right...
    High weight/low volume = increase in muscle fibers... As in the number of them? Building new fibers/tissue = adding size/mass, no?

    Low weight/high volume = tearing/rebuilding fibers... so no new tissue?

    Doesn't that go against the whole low weight/high volume = mass and low volume/high weight = strength idea?

    Not quite: The tearing and rebuilding they rebuild larger due to the fluid retention (increase in muscle size), muscle fibers themselves become larger. the increase in the number of muscle fibers makes the muscle harder and more dense and not that much larger as the fibers stay relatively small just more of them.

    So lighter more reps = larger muscle fibers, heavier lower rep = more, but smaller muscle fibers.
    Again this is info that I have come across, which may not be 100% accurate, but is how I understand it to be.
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    Options
    You are no longer a beginner when you can not progress in weight\reps at the rate of a beginner. Not 100%, but generally this will be somewhere close to 1RMS being 1.2xBW Bench, 2xBW Squat, 2.5xBW Deadlift
    Just so I'm clear...
    1RMS = 1 rep max?
    1.2xBW = body weight * 1.2?
    2xBW = body weight * 2?
    2.5xBW = body weight * 2.5?


    Eventually you can get into the difference between myofibrilar (comes more from strength training and is smaller visually) and sarcoplasmic (comes more from your mid rep ranges and is caused by fluid storage) hypertrophy.
    this is definitely something I need to read more about. thanks.

    For some reason it is common for people to think they have to be limited to one rep range. Guess what. You don't! There are good prewritten programs out there that do both such as PHAT and 5/3/1 Boring But Big template. PHAT does 2 upper and 2 lower with one of each being Power (high weight low rep) and one of each being Hypertrophy (mid weight mid rep) I personally plan to move to 5/3/1 BBB template arranged to work muscles 2 times per week. In that one you work each of the big 4 (Squat, Bench, Deadlift, OHP) on a separate day for power, and then do one or two additional lifts in mid weight\rep, I think 4x12.
    What do you mean "limited on rep range"? I don't think there is a limit in term of overall benefit, but with specific goals, rep ranges are relevant, no? Or am I completely misunderstanding you?
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    Options
    My understanding is that you increase the muscle fibers at the low rep high weight, but with the higher reps lower weight you mainly grow the existing muscle fibers by having them tear and rebuild and fill with fluid.

    If I'm reading that right...
    High weight/low volume = increase in muscle fibers... As in the number of them? Building new fibers/tissue = adding size/mass, no?

    Low weight/high volume = tearing/rebuilding fibers... so no new tissue?

    Doesn't that go against the whole low weight/high volume = mass and low volume/high weight = strength idea?

    the tearing and rebuilding they rebuild larger due to the fluid retention (increase in muscle size), muscle fibers themselves become larger. the increase in the number of muscle fibers makes the muscle harder and more dense and not that much larger as the fibers stay relatively small just more of them.

    Again this is info that I have come across, which may not be 100% accurate, but is how I understand it to be.

    Gotcha, thanks!
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    Options
    First and foremost different muscles respond differently to different rep ranges. I've heard (so anecdotal I know, but I tend to trust Paul Carter when it comes to lifting and he's said it) that legs respond better hypertrophy wise to higher rep sets (20+) while your upper body does better with lower rep sets for hypertrophy (8-20). Then again, he's also doing insane crap like curling the bar for 160 reps in a set, or 65 pounds for 100, and his arms are jacked as hell. For 5-3-1 folks, Wendler likes it too and came up with this with him: http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_article/most_recent/100rep_challenge
    Great... another variable, lol. Thanks, I'll look into those.

    From my relatively amatuer perspective, it has more to do with how much energy you have than if you're bulking/cutting. High weight, low rep, compound movements tend to give you the most bang for your buck in terms of overall strength and musculature. Make sure you do those, and if you still have the energy afterwards you can add in some bodybuilding stuff to improve/enhance musculature.
    Hmmm...


    I really think the only difference between bulking and cutting workout routines is that you can do more cardio on a bulk and you should either be doing more volume or seeing faster gains with your lifts during that time, too.
    More cardio during a bulk? "convention" (for whatever that's worth), says cardio slows muscular/strength gains. Logically I can see both sides - as long as you are netting a surplus, you can build muscle even with cardio being part of your routine, but alternatively the more things your body has to fuel/repair, the less it can put into muscle/strength gains.
  • Determinednoob
    Determinednoob Posts: 2,001 Member
    Options
    You are no longer a beginner when you can not progress in weight\reps at the rate of a beginner. Not 100%, but generally this will be somewhere close to 1RMS being 1.2xBW Bench, 2xBW Squat, 2.5xBW Deadlift
    Just so I'm clear...
    1RMS = 1 rep max?
    1.2xBW = body weight * 1.2?
    2xBW = body weight * 2?
    2.5xBW = body weight * 2.5?


    Eventually you can get into the difference between myofibrilar (comes more from strength training and is smaller visually) and sarcoplasmic (comes more from your mid rep ranges and is caused by fluid storage) hypertrophy.
    this is definitely something I need to read more about. thanks.

    For some reason it is common for people to think they have to be limited to one rep range. Guess what. You don't! There are good prewritten programs out there that do both such as PHAT and 5/3/1 Boring But Big template. PHAT does 2 upper and 2 lower with one of each being Power (high weight low rep) and one of each being Hypertrophy (mid weight mid rep) I personally plan to move to 5/3/1 BBB template arranged to work muscles 2 times per week. In that one you work each of the big 4 (Squat, Bench, Deadlift, OHP) on a separate day for power, and then do one or two additional lifts in mid weight\rep, I think 4x12.
    What do you mean "limited on rep range"? I don't think there is a limit in term of overall benefit, but with specific goals, rep ranges are relevant, no? Or am I completely misunderstanding you?

    Correct on 1rm 1.2xbw etc

    I mean you don't have to limit yourself to only one rep range in your lifting routine. To simplify, you could start out with a few 3x5 on compound lifts followed by some 3x8-12 isolations in the same workout. This is harder to do on a full body routine since you will have to use those same muscles again in a couple days, so the additional volume can hinder your next workout. In this case it's best to leave it for your last day of the week assuming you then get 2 days rest afterwards. Once you get to an upper\lower or push\pull or bodypart split, it is easier to manage since you get more rest days before working the same muscle again. People often act like you can only work in one rep range at any given time for some unknown arbitrary reason when there is nothing saying you have to.

    I could be wrong, but I bet dude meant more cardio on a cut. Everything I ever see suggests that you keep your lifting exactly the same during a cut and just switch from surplus to deficit. And understand that progress may stall or even go negative if you cut too long and\or too hard.
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    Options
    I mean you don't have to limit yourself to only one rep range in your lifting routine. To simplify, you could start out with a few 3x5 on compound lifts followed by some 3x8-12 isolations in the same workout. This is harder to do on a full body routine since you will have to use those same muscles again in a couple days, so the additional volume can hinder your next workout. In this case it's best to leave it for your last day of the week assuming you then get 2 days rest afterwards. Once you get to an upper\lower or push\pull or bodypart split, it is easier to manage since you get more rest days before working the same muscle again. People often act like you can only work in one rep range at any given time for some unknown arbitrary reason when there is nothing saying you have to.

    I gotcha.
  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,293 Member
    Options

    I could be wrong, but I bet dude meant more cardio on a cut. Everything I ever see suggests that you keep your lifting exactly the same during a cut and just switch from surplus to deficit. And understand that progress may stall or even go negative if you cut too long and\or too hard.

    I have not heard keeping the lifting the same, as far as I am aware that load should be reduced slighly while in a deficit so your muscles can repair on the limited caloric intake (in other words 3x5 instead of 5x5)
  • ArroganceInStep
    ArroganceInStep Posts: 6,239 Member
    Options
    More cardio during a bulk? "convention" (for whatever that's worth), says cardio slows muscular/strength gains. Logically I can see both sides - as long as you are netting a surplus, you can build muscle even with cardio being part of your routine, but alternatively the more things your body has to fuel/repair, the less it can put into muscle/strength gains.

    The only studies I have seen show negative effects at retaining lean body mass on a cut if you have too much cardio. I've not seen anything about the limiting effects of cardio on a bulk, other than the need to eat moar food.
  • Determinednoob
    Determinednoob Posts: 2,001 Member
    Options
    More cardio during a bulk? "convention" (for whatever that's worth), says cardio slows muscular/strength gains. Logically I can see both sides - as long as you are netting a surplus, you can build muscle even with cardio being part of your routine, but alternatively the more things your body has to fuel/repair, the less it can put into muscle/strength gains.

    The only studies I have seen show negative effects at retaining lean body mass on a cut if you have too much cardio. I've not seen anything about the limiting effects of cardio on a bulk, other than the need to eat moar food.

    Pretty much as long as the cardio isn't intensive enough to hinder muscle recovery. I can say that right now in week 1 of first real bulk, I am not sure I would want to have to eat more. I'm doing 3200 cals per day and it is already starting to seem like a second job. Hardly doing any powder or "junk," but I have resorted to a bit of chocolate milk.
  • Determinednoob
    Determinednoob Posts: 2,001 Member
    Options

    I could be wrong, but I bet dude meant more cardio on a cut. Everything I ever see suggests that you keep your lifting exactly the same during a cut and just switch from surplus to deficit. And understand that progress may stall or even go negative if you cut too long and\or too hard.

    I have not heard keeping the lifting the same, as far as I am aware that load should be reduced slighly while in a deficit so your muscles can repair on the limited caloric intake (in other words 3x5 instead of 5x5)

    I dunno. I always see the other way. I just recently finished a 6.5 month cut during which I lifted as heavy as possible without noticing any ill effects. I see some people talk about ADDING weight during cuts, but they are probably shorter cuts, and those people are probably lucky.
  • ArroganceInStep
    ArroganceInStep Posts: 6,239 Member
    Options

    I could be wrong, but I bet dude meant more cardio on a cut. Everything I ever see suggests that you keep your lifting exactly the same during a cut and just switch from surplus to deficit. And understand that progress may stall or even go negative if you cut too long and\or too hard.

    I have not heard keeping the lifting the same, as far as I am aware that load should be reduced slighly while in a deficit so your muscles can repair on the limited caloric intake (in other words 3x5 instead of 5x5)

    I think your baseline should be kept the same regardless of cutting or bulking. Volume/frequency of the staples and volume/frequency of support work can and should be played with to maximize results though.